Conciseness

The ~680-line body re-derives concepts Claude already knows (Amdahl's law, tail percentiles vs mean, warmup, Goodhart's law) and duplicates its own material — noise/MDE guidance appears in §1, the metric protocol fields, and the checklist; case-set design appears in both §1 and Investigation; the Pre-Submit Checklist restates the Investigation section nearly field-for-field. This is several padded/duplicated sections, matching anchor 2 rather than the occasional tightening of anchor 3.

Actionability

The method half is concretely executable: exact task YAML with ids, skills, and bodies; explicit optimization-method and ledger field lists; the exact call 'end_node(done=True, report=..., request_attention=True)'; and enumerated dispositions ('accept | reject | keep_as_evidence | rerun | inspect'). It stays at 4 rather than 5 because the strategy half is necessarily prose and worker guidance defers to unspecified project-authored skills.

Workflow Clarity

Multi-step processes are explicitly sequenced with validation checkpoints and error-recovery loops: The Loop (steps 1–7), Operating Order for PLAN and DECIDE wakes, acceptance before/after lists, the four disqualifying win questions of §6, rerun triggers 'when the delta is close to noise', and a patch policy mapping each anti-pattern to a fix. Validation is pervasive, so no destructive/batch cap applies and the 5 anchor is the best fit.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist — the strategy prose, metric-family table, field-list specifications, and checklists are all inlined in a single very long file that clearly merits splitting into references. Good internal headers keep it above the 'minimal structure' of anchor 2, but zero file separation for a document of this length caps it at 3.

Specificity

The description lists nine concrete method actions — 'establishing the ground truth, trusting the measurement, profiling to the dominant cost, estimating the ceiling, generating and pruning disposable hypotheses, exploring cheaply before verifying expensively, guarding against metric gaming and overfitting', plus 'stopping on evidence' — comprehensive coverage of the mission lifecycle, matching the top anchor rather than the 'minor gaps' of 4.

Completeness

It clearly answers 'what' ('Domain playbook... Defines how to think about and run an optimization mission') and 'when' with explicit trigger guidance ('any task whose goal is to move a metric' followed by concrete trigger phrases), which is equivalent to a 'Use when...' clause; not 4, because the 'when' is explicit and concrete rather than improvable.

Trigger Term Quality

'performance, latency, throughput, memory, cost, score, quality, compression, ranking, solver, model/eval, and similar metric-improvement work' gives good natural-keyword coverage across metric families, but common user phrasings like 'faster', 'speed up', 'benchmark', and 'tuning' are absent, so it falls short of the comprehensive synonym coverage of the 5 anchor.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The metric-moving mission framing is a clear niche with distinct triggers, but broad terms like 'quality', 'cost', and 'memory' leave minor overlap risk with single-domain skills (cost reduction, memory profiling); not 5 because conflict risk is more than minimal.